Review confined to apparent error and deduction for credit sales needs proof of statutory conditions; assessee failed on both points.

Review under the transitional scheme was confined to error apparent on the face of the record, so a mere erroneous decision did not justify rectification; the Tribunal could not exercise a wider review power than the Board of Revenue for pre-commencement liabilities, and the assessee's challenge failed. For deduction on credit sales to registered dealers, the assessee had to establish the statutory conditions; production of the declaration form was not invariably mandatory if other satisfactory evidence existed, but no such alternative material was shown, so the deduction claim also failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to rectify the Board of Revenue's order under the review provision; and (ii) whether production of the declaration form was mandatory to claim deduction for credit sales to registered dealers.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to rectify the Board of Revenue's order under the review provision.

Analysis: Review was confined to error apparent on the face of the record. A mere erroneous decision did not justify review. The Tribunal's power under the transitional scheme could not exceed the Board's power, because proceedings relating to pre-commencement liability were to continue under the earlier Act as if the later Act had not been passed. On that footing, the Tribunal could not assume a wider review jurisdiction than the Board.

Conclusion: The refusal to rectify by review was justified and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether production of the declaration form was mandatory to claim deduction for credit sales to registered dealers.

Analysis: Deduction for sales to registered dealers depended on satisfaction that the statutory conditions were met. Although production of the declaration form was not invariably mandatory if other material established the required credit sale, no such alternative material was shown on the record. In the absence of evidence satisfying the taxing authority, the assessee could not claim the deduction merely by relying on the absence of the form requirement as an absolute rule.

Conclusion: The declaration requirement was not disproved on the facts, and the claim for deduction failed against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee on both the review jurisdiction point and the substantive deduction issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Review lies only for error apparent on the face of the record, and a deduction for credit sales to registered dealers can be denied where the assessee fails to establish the statutory conditions by the required declaration or by other satisfactory evidence.

---